Gay marriage: why do you care???

[labrys 0]

Quote

What about the "share the misery" argument? Seems to have legs.

There's a really good reason that I decided to remain single after my last long term relationship.

Owned by Remi #?

[TriGirl 343]

Quote

Quote

Quote

1. I'm not sure there are many benefits to being married. There are certainly none that can't be easily replicated.

"Certainly none"? Really? What about pension survivor benefits? Social Security is just 1 example of that sort of thing. I didn't even have to think about it.

Mmmmm...ok. I really don't think about government benefits, but that is certainly one. Of course, it would presume the survivor did not qualify for SS themselves, which means they did not work a minimum of ten years. Kind of interesting that a gay couple chose to play 1950's couple with one of them being a happy homemaker, but it could happen.

Got another?

Military housing, health benefits (one spouse works a job where benefits are given, the other either doesn't or stays home), family separation pay during deployments (another military one, but that's my job, so...), immigration law (spouse visa).

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[davjohns 1]

I put that in my original list of thoughts. Let 'em be miserable like everyone else.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

i haven't been tracking the military thing, but I'm pretty sure all of that is going to have to get cleared up really quickly now that openly gay people are ok in the services.

You guys are going to bug me into researching the whole immigation thing, aren't you?

Ya'll get awfully huffy toward the guy who said up front he's on the side of the gay people. Sheesh.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Still looking. First thing I found:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Pelosi in a letter that she had ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify its field offices "that the interpretation of the phrase ‘family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners."

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Why do we need to draw a line?

It's usually at this point that some (you'll forgive me) rocket scientist responds, "So if people should be able to marry their dogs if they want to?", and then we're off to the races.

As a rocket scientist, I disagree. I, along with most rocket scientists of my acquaintance, couldn't care less.

It's the lawyers who always stand to gain.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>Why do you feel the need to call gun owners religious nutters?

Probably the same reason that gun supporters call everyone else "gun banners." Easier to argue against.

I thought it was "gun grabbers" this month.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Maybe I glossed over it while speed reading the thread, but a very significant advantage of being married is that a non-working (or low income) spouse qualifies for Social Security survivor benefits in the event that the working (or higher income) spouse dies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TriGirl 343]

Quote

Still looking. First thing I found:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Pelosi in a letter that she had ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify its field offices "that the interpretation of the phrase ‘family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners."

I'll ask my visa section tomorrow how that works for getting a visa in the first place.

Strange, how I wouldn't be able to get it for a "long-term, opposite-sex" partner without legal marriage, though. IMHO, it should be same for both. Either be able to simply "designate" a partner (same or opposite gender), or codify marriage the same way for both. It seems there are way too many "exceptions" being made to allow same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal benefits without calling it "marriage" by law, just so we can avoid the issue.

Personally, I'd be more likely to get a civil union with a guy than marry him. If the benefits are the same, it really shouldn't make a difference legally. And since I don't believe in religion, you can take the word "marriage" out of any legal definition and leave that for the churches. Just a thought in the other direction.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Conceptually, as well as legally, getting rid of tax differentials for marital status can be accomplished w/o fundamentally altering the legal nature of marriage or divorce the way it currently is in most Western countries (not just the US).

I heard there used to be a "marriage penalty" in the U.S. income tax rates, and that congress wanted to fix it. Is there now a "marriage advantage"?

Vskydiver and I are joint everything and we have an accountant do our taxes. I have know idea if we'd do better as singles.

That's temporarily fixed, as the standard deduction for married filed jointly is exactly twice the deduction of a signle person. I think there still some breakpoint discrepancies, e.g. two people combining their income hit the 25% tax bracket at something less than double the corresponding income level of a single person. That said, a lot of this depends on income parity. Two people making similar money will suffer some marriage penalty, but if one person makes a lot more than the other person, their combined tax bill will be reduced. Erin and I were registered domestic partners for a few years before we married in order to get her on my employer's health plan. There was a few thousand dollar a year tax penalty associated with that, but it ended the day we got married. Basically any benefit an employer pays for to cover a domestic partner (or their children) is considered taxable. If the person is a spouse, it's tax exempt.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

There was a few thousand dollar a year tax penalty associated with that, but it ended the day we got married

You mean you got to marry that beautiful, gorgeous woman AND save money? How cool is that?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

There was a few thousand dollar a year tax penalty associated with that, but it ended the day we got married

You mean you got to marry that beautiful, gorgeous woman AND save money? How cool is that?

Yep! I called our HR lady the following Monday morning, while we were having breakfast, and told her to fix that. Instant raise of something like eighty bucks a week based solely on ditching the "domestic partner" benefits tax.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

>I was referring more to people outside of public office when talking about insulting
>behaviors of left leaning folks . . .

Perhaps, depending on where you are. Here on SC the right wing seems to try especially hard to be insulting. (As an easy example, a poster here uses the term "that bitch from CA" regularly. Without knowing what the topic was, which side do you think he's representing?)

>For instance,I bet many are pro 2nd amendment and support gay rights,and
>environmental protection issues as well.

Agreed.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do we need to draw a line?

It's usually at this point that some (you'll forgive me) rocket scientist responds, "So if people should be able to marry their dogs if they want to?", and then we're off to the races.

But that is not two consenting adults. Same when they bring up the "oh, well I guess people can marry a child now." That also is not two consenting adults.

Only adult animals. A puppy or kitten can't consent.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[promise5 17]

Quote

Quote

>Why do you feel the need to call gun owners religious nutters?

Probably the same reason that gun supporters call everyone else "gun banners." Easier to argue against.

Athiest Gun-o-phobes would be more accurate. Which of course one has nothing to do with the other.

I sooo have to steal that. "gun-o-phobes" I think I might have a bumper sticker made and send it back home. hhhhmmm

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[davjohns 1]

Honestly, I don't understand the whole concept of marriage anymore. Why anyone would fight for or against it is beyond me. Why governments put stock in an institution that has long since stopped meaning anything makes no sense. On here, people are getting all emotional and even attack people who agree with them.

As long as you aren't harming anyone else, I don't much care how you live your life. Strive to be happy. If you can, do something to add to someone else's happines.

I know. It's a lot to ask in this world today.

David.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[TriGirl 343]

Quote

Still looking. First thing I found:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Pelosi in a letter that she had ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify its field offices "that the interpretation of the phrase ‘family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners."

Let me beat this dead horse for a minute. For the record, an immigrant cannot get a spouse or fiance visa (meaning, intent to stay in the country permanently under this qualification) if their justificaiton is applied to a same-sex partner.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[davjohns 1]

I'm not arguing with you. I didn't think about some of the more esoteric things that are granted to married people and not single. I agree that it makes no sense and should be changed.

I hereby apologize for offending anyone for saying that the benefits of mariage could be accomodated in other ways.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[TriGirl 343]

Quote

I'm not arguing with you. I didn't think about some of the more esoteric things that are granted to married people and not single. I agree that it makes no sense and should be changed.

I hereby apologize for offending anyone for saying that the benefits of mariage could be accomodated in other ways.

What? Why apologize? It's SC!

Seriously -- I was at work, wanted to keep the reply short & to the point. I didn't realize it would sound so negative. I did say that I would check with my Visa section, so I just wanted to follow up.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[maadmax 0]

Is gay marriage really just about the economic benefits or is it an attempt to legitimize relationships in a culture that previously regarded them as deviant?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Is gay marriage really just about the economic benefits or is it an attempt to legitimize relationships in a culture that previously regarded them as deviant?

Who cares about the reason. The writing seems to be on the wall. It's the end result that I'm concerned with.

As long as single, married-straight, married-gay are treated fairly and equally under the law. It's all good.

In regards to this issue, It's not the governments place to "encorage" any type of arrangement (or lack thereof) between two parties. If people stay focued on that and work out a fair solution we can see gay marriage legalized in the not so distant future... if the issue is framed as just way to give "legitmacy" to gay couples while ignoring the economic impacts, the issue does not have a snowballs chance.

For the record, I would like to see any "benefits" removed from the equation. A single person, gay couple, straight couple, etc. should all be treated fairly under the law.

In short, for me, It's very much an economic issue.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Is gay marriage really just about the economic benefits or is it an attempt to legitimize relationships in a culture that previously regarded them as deviant?

it really is just about benefits - that's the only role available to gov

the 'legitimizing' comment is so very subjective that I can't imagine any government action on the subject to have a measurable effect on anything meaningful other than benefits - a marriage is legitimate because the couple live the life, and maybe there is some level of personal appreciation we get from the acknowledgment of family and the closest of friends. Other than that, it's pretty pointless.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[winsor 236]

Quote

There is a lot of debate at the moment in France over allowing same-sex marriage.

Assuming you ignore the religious argument and the "it's unnatural" argument ("homosexual" behaviour is not exclusive to humans)... Just what exactly is the impact of allowing gay people to get married??? I would argue that if you are not gay (and therefore already enjoy all the rights/privileges that marriage affords), there is NO IMPACT on your life at all. Things married people take for granted include: inheritance, and medical decisions, and tax benefits, et cetera, et cetera.

So why would you care at all that gay people want the same rights as you??? More importantly, why would you deny them the same rights as you???

Where to begin?

At least in my tribe, marriage was originally associated with procreation. Given that the male population tended to be reduced by warfare, there were provisions for polygamy that have been stricken in the interim.

In any event, the issue was to ensure that offspring were the result of people who were committed to their upbringing, and rules were put in force accordingly.

Similarly, many of the old rules frowned on circumventing the sex -> kids process. Recreational sex of any stripe does not do much from the "be fruitful and multiply" standpoint, fun though it may be.

Now that the Miracle of Modern Medicine (tm) has made it possible for children to be generated by various and sundry permutations of parental activity, or lack thereof, the rules have become a bit more blurry and some rethink may be in order.

As far as variations on the theme go, offshoots of the Salt Lake City crowd are all for all the wives one can gather. Then there was a guy in Maine who noted that it was not locally proscribed, and proceeded to marry a collie (I am guessing that it was female, at least). Also, there have been various groups that espoused one form of polygamy or another (see "Paint Your Wagon").

Now we get to the most important issue - money. Though marriage has generally been handled by the clergy (or the Captain of a ship, as the case may be), the Government involves itself when it comes to finances, which is were it gets ever the more arcane. Who gets to claim a pension, or inheritance without taxation, or particular tax breaks can add up to quite a few Shekels.

Thus, there is a movement to say that the standard biological breeding pair is the limit to the exception allowed by law. While there is no fertility clause, the basic allotment of one of each gender, all from the same species seems to be the norm.

Kinky Friedman, when asked about his stance on the matter, made the point that gays should have the opportunity to be as miserable as everyone else. It's a thought.

I am largely indifferent to what other people do; if someone wants to marry a begonia, I say have at it.


BSBD,

Winsor

[dpreguy 14]

Marriage is a legal term. With marriage comes a multitude of statutes in every state.
All states have laws regarding: bigamy, incest, prohibitions to marry if children are within a certain degree of affinity (as in brother and sister, not just consanguinity), inheritance rights, the right of a defendant to object to testimony of a spouse - which the spouse may invoke also (unless the spouse is the victim), adoption rules, consents to surgery or signing a 'do not resuscitate=DNR'document, living will privileges and obligations about prolonging life, laws of inheritance when someone dies intestate, income tax laws and probably a few others that in an instant I can't think of. There are probably dozens.

This isn't a comment about whether homosexuals SHOULD be able to marry. Just a reminder that in every state there are many statutes that refer to a legal marriage to define or limit certain rights or create privileges.

[narcimund 0]

As possibly the only gay-married skydiver I suppose I should chime in with a first-hand account.

My marriage is mostly in the agreement I have with my husband. We could be married without government or societal recognition just by saying, "We're married, right?" "Right!" That's all it takes.

But sometimes government and societal recognition has benefits. Some are economic, some are bureaucratic, some are social, and some are symbolic. Maybe someday we'll value the spousal inheritance tax treatment. Or freedom from being compelled to testify against a spouse in court. Not too many years ago we found that Canadian immigration requires somewhat less paperwork and expense for officially married couples than for common law married couples, and far less than for two single people. I imagine it's similar when immigrating to the US.

Yes, some bureaucratic benefits can be simulated in piecemeal fashion. But even those are automatically different by virtue of having to be filed with complex research, lawyering, and expense instead of a charming brief visit from the marriage commissioner who just asked if we love each other forever. Argue all you like but that's just not the same thing in a bunch of ways.

I can report from personal experience that even though I've been well treated and respected my entire life, being married confers a palpable social acceptance that "boyfriend" or "dating" does not.

And if the symbolism means the world to us, then that's what's important.

You all can argue over the how much these benefits matter or even if they exist all you like, but it's our business which ones we care about and how much.

In the end being government married is far from the most important thing in the world to me but it's one inequity that's really inexpensive for the world to rectify. I'm glad it's moving forward. I'm especially glad that young gay people for the most part have a more welcoming world to grow up in. That matters a whole lot and legal gay marriage contributes to that result.

First Class Citizen Twice Over